Simulation and Experimental Design of an Axial Flow Cyclone Separator Suitable for High-Wind–Sand Environments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript addresses a relevant engineering challenge and demonstrates a systematic approach to optimizing cyclone separators. However, it requires substantial revisions to enhance clarity, depth, and scientific rigor. Addressing the following problems will strengthen its contribution to the field and improve its chances of publication.
Review Comments:
Lack of Detailed CFD Results:
The manuscript mentions using CFD simulations (RSM and DPM) but fails to present detailed flow field analyses (e.g., velocity contours, vortices, pressure distributions). Figures 6 and 7 only show parametric trends, not actual flow dynamics.
Authors can include visualizations of flow fields (e.g., velocity vectors, particle trajectories) and correlate these with separation efficiency and pressure drop. Discuss how flow patterns (e.g., recirculation zones, turbulence intensity) influence performance.
Weak Literature Review:
The introduction lists separation methods (filtration, electrostatic, etc.) but lacks critical analysis of their limitations and how axial flow cyclones address these gaps. Existing studies are cited without contextualizing their relevance to this work.
Please expand the literature review to compare axial vs. counterflow cyclones, highlight unresolved challenges (e.g., clogging in high dust loads), and clearly define the novelty of this study (e.g., hybrid blade design, self-cleaning mechanism). Include more literature about CFD study of cyclone separators.
Superficial Results Discussion:
While Tables 1–2 and Figures 6–8 present data, the manuscript lacks mechanistic explanations. For instance, why does increasing blade count improve efficiency only up to 8 blades? How do flow dynamics change with A1/A2 angles?
Please discuss the fluid mechanics behind trends (e.g., trade-offs between centrifugal force and turbulence losses). Address discrepancies between simulation (91.68%) and experimental (87.30%) efficiency (e.g., wall roughness, particle interactions).
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageServal separated sentences as a paragraph, please beware of the punctuations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments on the paper "Simulation and Experimental Design of An Axial Flow Cyclone Separator Suitable for High Wind-sand Environments":
1) The paper does not provide sufficient justification for the choice of specific parameters, such as the number of guide vanes and their angles. It is necessary to discuss in more detail why these parameters were chosen for optimization, as well as to compare them with other existing solutions.
2) The description of the numerical simulation, including the turbulence models used, requires more clarity. For example, it is not stated why RSM (Reynolds Stress Model) was chosen and how it compares with other models, such as LES (Large Eddy Simulation) or RANS (Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes).
3) The paper does not include a sensitivity analysis that could show how changes in the design parameters affect the separation efficiency and pressure drop. This is an important aspect, as it allows us to understand how critical certain parameters are.
4) The results of experiments and simulations may not fully reflect the behavior of the separator in real conditions. It is recommended to conduct additional field tests under conditions close to real ones to confirm the obtained results.
4) The article claims that the separator is suitable for "long-term, maintenance-free" use. However, no data is provided to support this claim, such as estimates of component wear or the need for maintenance.
5) The conclusions of the article should be clearer and more specific. It is necessary to highlight the key achievements of the research and their significance for practical application, as well as indicate directions for future research.
After eliminating the comments, the article can be considered for publication in the journal
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRemarks and comments on the article
Simulation and Experimental Design of An Axial Flow Cyclone Separator Suitable for High Wind-sand Environments
This study addressed for the fresh air treatment system as a critical component of the plant's ventilation system. A novel axial flow cyclone separator was optimized and designed in order to meet the demand for both efficient sand particle separation and low-cost operation and maintenance. This study analyzes the impact of different structural parameters on the performance of the axial flow cyclone separator and optimizes the design of a novel separator that meets the sand separation requirements of fresh air systems in high wind-blown sand environments. The effects of structural and operational parameters on pressure drop and separation efficiency were investigated through numerical simulations. An orthogonal experiment was conducted on a 1:1 stainless steel axial flow cyclone separator model using a wind tunnel experimental platform. The performance of the optimized cyclone separator in terms of separation efficiency and pressure drop under high wind-blown sand conditions was studied.
The results of the study can be applied for designing of high efficiency and low pressure drop axial flow cyclone separators.
According to the data provided in the article, there are a number of questions and comments:
- For the optimization of separation devices, it is important to reduce the pressure drop at a given efficiency. Therefore, the required efficiency should be specified.
- It is necessary to provide the particle size distribution. Unfortunately, the article does not provide data on the fractional efficiency of the separator, which is the most important characteristic of the separation device.
- In the experiments there was only one air flow rate of 8000 m3/h. In practice it may differ. It is necessary to give explanations on this issue, and also to indicate the dimensions of the axial flow separator.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript discussed an axial flow cyclone separator suitable for high wind-sand environments. It is interesting and valuable for wind-sand separation engineering. The manuscript should be improved in the following aspects.
1. The contents in line 146 to 157 should be reorganized. Symbols explanation should be expressed firstly. The normal order should be formula followed by symbol explanations, and then other explanations.
2. In line 160, equation (3) should be equation (5).
3. There is short of the detail of numerical simulation such as the meshed model, boundary conditions, the grid-independency discussion, the contours of the flow field.
4. Section 3 should be reorganized. A suggested order is parameter study scheme first, followed by details of numerical simulation of an example, and then parameter study results and discussions.
The manuscript discussed an axial flow cyclone separator suitable for high wind-sand environments. It is interesting and valuable for wind-sand separation engineering. The manuscript should be improved in the following aspects.
1. The sentence in Line 193 and 194 is not complete.
2. The sentence in line 196 and 197 is ambiguous. What are uniformly distributed?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article concerns the design and optimization of an axial-flow cyclone separator.
The source materials and applied solutions have been correctly selected.
In my opinion, the article is worthy of publication.
Please consider:
- Adding more references related to axial cyclone flow topics.
- Providing a more detailed explanation of the cyclone's operation with a clearer and more precise diagram (Figure 1).
- Better illustrating and describing the separation process, making it more readable in the figures.
- Improving the clarity of Figure 3, as it is currently difficult to read. Only one reference is marked? Consider redesigning Figure 3 to be more legible.
- Presenting a description of the discrete model and providing key information about the numerical grid.
- Including a clear diagram of the numerical model, along with descriptions of boundary and initial conditions.
- Listing the measurement instruments used, including their operating ranges and measurement accuracy.
- Adding a scale bar to Figure 5 to illustrate particle sizes.
- Correlating the description of the test stand with Figure 4 by adding references to specific components.
- Instead of writing “As shown in the table above,” it would be better to specify “As shown in Table 1.” (line 326). Similarly, in line 363.
- Clarifying how “separator efficiency” was determined.
- Comparing numerical calculation results with experimental data in a graph showing separator efficiency as a function of particle concentration.
- Providing a more detailed and clearer explanation of the experimental results shown in Figure 8.
- Clearly explaining the method referred to as “an orthogonal experimental method.”
Congratulations to the authors on their good work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors answered almost all my comments. I have no more questions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your recognition and your valuable time in reviewing our manuscript. We are grateful that our responses and revisions have addressed your comments, and we appreciate your feedback that you have no further questions. Please feel free to contact us if any additional clarification is needed.
Sincerely,
Zhiyuan Wang
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript has been improved in many aspects. I would like to recommend it for publication. By the way, some modifications are suggested as following.
- Subgraph names should be added after the figure name for Figure 7-9, just as that for Figure 5.
- The legend text is too small for Figure 9.
- Figures and Tables should be mentioned before it appears.
4.Several references (1,2,3,14,22,27) are short of information, such as paper number or pages.
- Pay attention to too many capital letters for paper titles in some references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors, thank you for making the revisions to the article. In my opinion, they have enhanced its scientific value. I accept the changes and have no further comments. Congratulations on the work accomplished, and I wish you continued success!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your encouraging and positive feedback. We are truly grateful that you found our revisions satisfactory and that they enhanced the scientific value of the manuscript. Your kind words and support mean a great deal to us. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work and thank you again for your recognition.
Sincerely,
Zhiyuan Wang
